It's about who you beat and how you beat them not about the kind of title you have. All the 4 major belts are corrupt as each other. The only respectable belt is the Ring belt. The worst belt to have is the WBA right now. WBO is one of the better ones nowadays.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Would you rather have 20 Title Defenses with the "IBF" or "WBO"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Deja_Vous View PostIBF
The WBO is a contender's belt.
It's not meant to be held for years on end.
Until Joe and Margarito NOBODY held the WBO for any length of time.
NOBODY with a WBO considered themselves a real cham until those clowns hit the scene.
The WBO hit their stride somewhere around 1995, when they boasted among others as their champs: Bowe (HW), Michalczewski (LHW), Eubank/Collins (SMW), Oscar de la Hoya (LW), Naseem Hamed (FW), Marco Antonio Barrera (JFW) and Johnny Tapia (JBW). It was then when the "big three" was changed to the "big four."
de la Hoya, Hamed and Barrera were all considered the top fighters of their divisions and P4P entrants over the course of their reigns, with Hamed and Barrera enjoying reigns longer than temporarily.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JakeNDaBox View PostThis is simply untrue. The only thing the IBF has on the WBO is time in service. But even they didn't gain legitimacy until Larry Holmes and Marvin Hagler endorsed them.
The WBO hit their stride somewhere around 1995, when they boasted among others as their champs: Bowe (HW), Michalczewski (LHW), Eubank/Collins (SMW), Oscar de la Hoya (LW), Naseem Hamed (FW), Marco Antonio Barrera (JFW) and Johnny Tapia (JBW). It was then when the "big three" was changed to the "big four."
de la Hoya, Hamed and Barrera were all considered the top fighters of their divisions and P4P entrants over the course of their reigns, with Hamed and Barrera enjoying reigns longer than temporarily.
So would you rather hold the WBO or IBF?
Comment
-
Comment